Date post: | 07-Jul-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | babelhardy |
View: | 215 times |
Download: | 0 times |
of 52
8/18/2019 Pol Dec and Corruption
1/52
Political decentralization and corruption:Evidence from around the world
How does political decentralization affect the frequency andcostliness of bribe-extraction by corrupt officials? Previousempirical studies, using subjective indexes of perceivedcorruption and mostly fiscal indicators of decentralization,have suggested conflicting conclusions. In search of more
precise findings, we combine and explore two new datasources—an original cross-national data set on particular typesof decentralization and the results of a firm level surveyconducted in 80 countries about firms’ concrete experienceswith bribery. In countries with a larger number of governmentor administrative tiers and (given local revenues) a largernumber of local public employees, reported bribery was morefrequent. When local—or central—governments received a
larger share of GDP in revenue, bribery was less frequent.Overall, the results suggest the danger of uncoordinatedrent-seeking as government structures become more complex.
C. Simon Fan, Lingnan University, Hong Kong
Chen Lin, Lingnan University, Hong Kongand
Daniel Treisman, UCLA
8/18/2019 Pol Dec and Corruption
2/52
1 Introduction
How does political decentralization affect the frequency and the costliness of corrupt bribe-extraction by
officials? Theories suggest conflicting conclusions. On one hand, by bringing officials “closer to the
people” or encouraging competition among governments for mobile resources, decentralization might
increase government accountability and discipline. On the other, decentralization could impede
coordination and exacerbate incentives for officials at different levels to “overgraze” the common bribe
base. More generally, one might expect a variety of effects associated with different types of
decentralization to operate simultaneously, pulling in many directions, with different strength in different
contexts.
A number of scholars have sought to answer this question empirically by looking for relationships
between measures of political or fiscal decentralization and crossnational indexes of perceived corruption
derived from surveys of risk analysts, businessmen and citizens. In particular, scholars have examined
perceived corruption ratings produced by Transparency International (TI), the World Bank (WB), and the
business consultancy Political Risk Services, which publishes the International Country Risk Guide
(ICRG). The findings of these studies have been mixed and sometimes mutually contradictory.
Focusing on fiscal decentralization, Huther and Shah (1998), De Mello and Barenstein (2001),
Fisman and Gatti (2002), and Arikan (2004) all report that a larger subnational share of public
expenditures (as measured in the IMF’s Government Finance Statistics) was associated with lower
perceived corruption using the TI, ICRG, or WB indexes. Enikolopov and Zhuravskaya (2007) do not
report an unconditional effect, but find that a larger subnational revenue share is associated with lower
perceived corruption (using WB but not TI data) in developing countries with older political parties (and
8/18/2019 Pol Dec and Corruption
3/52
However, in a more recent review of the empirical literature, Treisman (2007) suggested that neither the
(negative) expenditure decentralization effect nor the (positive) federalism effect was robust. The fiscal
decentralization effect was weakened by controlling for national religious traditions, and the federal effect
disappeared as the number of countries in the sample increased. Treisman (2002) and Arikan (2004)
explored whether smaller local units were associated with less corruption because of more intense
interjurisdictional competition, but obtained inconclusive results. Finally, examining the effect of the
vertical structure of states, Treisman (2002) found that a larger number of administrative or governmental
tiers correlated with higher perceived corruption, but whether subnational governments were appointed or
elected did not have a clear effect.
In this paper, we advance and improve upon this literature in three ways. First, our analysis exploits
an original cross-national data set on different varieties of decentralization, compiled from more than 480
sources. This allows us to design indicators of particular types of decentralization to match the underlying
logic of specific arguments. We look for relationships between reported experience with corruption and:
(i) the number of tiers of government or administration in the country (see Section 3.1), (ii) the average
land area of lowest tier units (see Section 3.2), (iii) several proxies for the extent of subnational political
decisionmaking (see Section 3.2 and others), (iv) an indicator for whether lower tier units have elected
executives (see Section 3.3), (v) a measure of subnational tax revenues as a share of GDP (see Section
3.4), and (vi) an estimate of the share of subnational government personnel in total civilian government
personnel (see Section 3.5).
Second, most previous studies have used perceived corruption indexes that rely on the aggregated
perceptions of businessmen or country experts, many of whom may have formed impressions—perhaps
subconsciously—based on common press depictions of countries or conventional notions about what
8/18/2019 Pol Dec and Corruption
4/52
experience-based indicators. Among countries rated as highly corrupt on the subjective indexes of TI,
WB, and the ICRG, there is great variation in the level of reported experience with corruption. For
instance, on the World Bank perceived corruption index, Argentina and Macedonia were both rated about
equally corrupt in 2000: they were ranked 103 and 114 respectively out of 185 countries. But respondents
from these two countries gave dramatically different answers when surveyed by the United Nations
Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute (UNICRI) in the late 1990s about their own personal
experience with bribery. When asked whether during the previous year “any government official, for
instance a customs officer, police officer or inspector” had asked or expected them to pay a bribe for his
services, respondents in Argentina were three and a half times as likely as the Macedonian respondents to
say yes. While Argentina had the second highest frequency of reported demands for bribes (second only
to Indonesia), Macedonia was only 24th in the list of 49 countries, about even with South Africa and the
Czech Republic. Perhaps of greater concern, a number of factors commonly believed to affect corruption
(democracy, press freedom, oil rents, even the percentage of women in government) do an excellent job
explaining the cross-national varietion in the subjective corruption indexes (R-squareds approaching .90).
But the same factors are mostly uncorrelated with the frequency or scale of self-reported experiences with
corruption once one controls for income. One cannot help wondering if the businessmen and experts
whose perceptions are being tapped might be inferring corruption levels from its hypothesized causes.
In this study, we explore the results of an experience-based survey of business managers conducted
in 80 countries. The World Business Environment Survey interviewed managers from more than 9,000
firms in 1999-2000. We focus on two questions. Respondents were asked: “Is it common for firms in your
line of business to have to pay some irregular ‘additional payments’ to get things done?” and “On
average what percent of total annual sales do firms like yours typically pay in unofficial payments/gifts
8/18/2019 Pol Dec and Corruption
5/52
businessmen in France and Brazil gave very similar responses to this question (about 27 percent saying
bribes were expected “always”, “mostly”, or “frequently”), France is rated as among the least corrupt
countries on the World Bank’s index, while Brazil is perceived to have much higher corruption. Of
course, no approach is completely without problems; it is possible that questions that focus more closely
on managers’ direct experience with corruption might not be answered with complete frankness for fear
of some kind of self-incrimination. However, we believe this danger is less serious than the danger that
bias will creep into the assessments of “experts” and foreign businessmen because of inconsistencies in
media coverage. (As a robustness check, we compare our results to those obtained using the traditional
perceived corruption data.)
[Figure 1 here]
Third, besides permitting us to focus on experience-based rather than subjective indicators of
corruption, the WBES makes it possible to control better for individual characteristics of survey respondents
(which vary systematically across countries). Specifically, we can control for the size, ownership structure,
investment level, and level of exports of firms in analyzing their managers’ responses on corruption.
In the next section, we briefly introduce the decentralization data used in the paper. We review common
arguments about the consequences of decentralization for governance in section 3, and in section 4 discuss the
corruption data and controls. We then look for evidence of the hypothesized effects in the WBES. In Section
5 we present empirical results and discuss robustness tests. Section 6 discusses the findings and concludes.
2 A new data set on governance in multi-level states
Previous work has often used measures of fiscal decentralization or simple dummies for federal structure to
8/18/2019 Pol Dec and Corruption
6/52
A first dimension is simply the number of tiers of government or administration. Our data set contains
information on this for 156 countries. We coded a level of administration as a “tier” if there existed a state
executive body at that level which met three conditions: (1) it was funded from the public budget, (2) it had
authority to administer a range of public services, and (3) it had a territorial jurisdiction. This definition
includes both bodies with decisionmaking autonomy and those that are essentially administrative agents of
higher level governments. On this measure, Singapore as of the mid-1990s had just one tier, while Uganda
had six.
Multi-level states differ also in the number and size of their lowest-tier units. This is relevant, for
instance, to arguments about interjurisdictional mobility. The data set contains estimates of the number of
bottom level units ( BOTTOM UNITS ), and the “average” area of these ( BOTTOM SIZE ), calculated by simply
dividing the country’s area by the number of units.2 While Guyana in the mid-1990s had just six incorporated
towns, India had some 235,000 lower tier village governments. The average area of the lowest tier units
ranged from 2.2 square kilometers in Bangladesh to 83 square kilometers in Botswana.
Perhaps most important, multi-level governments differ in how authority is divided among the various
tiers. Measuring the degree of decisionmaking autonomy of local governments in a systematic way is
notoriously difficult. Our data set contains a simple dummy ( AUTONOMY ), which records for 133 countries
whether the constitution assigned at least one policy area exclusively to subnational governments or gave
subnational governments exclusive authority to legislate on matters not constitutionally assigned to any level.
This variable is less than ideal. For one thing, informal behavior often diverges from what is written in the
constitution. In some countries—Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan, for instance—it seems unlikely the
constitutional provisions are scrupulously observed.3 Yet determining the degree of actual decisionmaking
decentralization in any country is inescapably subjective Experts often disagree with regard to a single
8/18/2019 Pol Dec and Corruption
7/52
importance of policy areas constitutionally assigned to subnational governments differs, and there is no
obvious way to add these up. AUTONOMY also focuses mostly on intermediate levels—states, provinces, or
regions—whereas the governments most relevant to questions of interregional competition will often be at the
local level. We supplement the use of AUTONOMY in our analysis with several other indicators of
decisionmaking decentralization available from other data sets and sources.4
To capture differences in the extent of local electoral accountability, we constructed two variables. The
first ( BOTTOM TIER ELECTION ) focuses on the mode of selection of the chief executive of the bottom tier
government, while the second (SECOND LOWEST TIER ELECTION ) focuses on the executive at the next
highest tier. Each of these takes the value 1 if the executives at the relevant tier were (as of the mid-1990s)
directly elected or chosen by a directly elected local assembly, and 0 if the executives were appointed by
higher level officials. They take the value 0.5 if some chief executives were appointed while others were
elected.
Details of the variables and the correlations between them and some other common decentralization
indicators are shown in Tables 1 and 2. While we focus on the impact of political decentralization on
corruption in this study, the political decentralization measures introduced here could be used to examine the
effects of decentralization on various other aspects of government performance such as service quality,
provision of public goods, and tax collection.
[Tables 1 and 2 here]
3 Decentralization and corruption: theory
Political or fiscal decentralization might affect the quality of government in various ways. We discuss
8/18/2019 Pol Dec and Corruption
8/52
here a number of arguments made in previous work, specifying to which type of decentralization each
applies. We do not expect most to be fully general, and some could operate simultaneously or offset each
other in complicated ways.
3.1 Vertical competition
Governments can use the power to regulate to extract bribes from firms or citizens. If the bribe rate is set too
high, this will discourage firms or citizens from producing wealth, reducing the amount of revenue actually
extracted. Thus, a unitary predatory government will moderate its demands. However, if multiple officials
regulate the same actors and fail to coordinate, they may set the total bribe rate higher than would be optimal
for a unitary, bribe-maximizing government (Shleifer and Vishny 1993). Indeed, the aggregate bribe burden is
likely to increase with the number of independent regulators. If officials at each tier in a multi-level state can
regulate, the burden of bribery should increase with the number of tiers. The logic is that of “double
marginalization” under vertical integration (Spengler 1950) or “overgrazing” in taxation (Keen and
Kotsogiannis 2002, Berkowitz and Li 2000).5
Although appealing, this argument might fail for various reasons. The number of independent
regulators might not increase with the number of tiers. In fact, administrative complexity at the center and
decentralization might be substitutes—to govern directly, a central government may need to create more
agencies in the capital to take the place of local field agents. Moreover, career concerns might motivate local
officials in a decentralized state to behave honestly. The hope of rising to higher office may cause local
officials to cultivate a reputation for integrity (Myerson 2006). Finally, if elected governments at different
levels provide comparable public goods, some scholars suggest they may be disciplined by yardstick
titi V t th f f h b h k t j d th ffi i f th th
8/18/2019 Pol Dec and Corruption
9/52
performance will look bad in comparison to its more liberal counterparts at other levels. To test this argument,
we use the variable TIERS , measuring the number of levels of government or administration.
3.2 Interregional competition
If capital or labor is mobile and local governments choose policies, they may tailor these to attract the mobile
factor (Hayek 1939, Tiebout 1956). Officials who steal or waste resources will lose residents and businesses
to other regions, reducing their tax base. If they over-regulate in order to extract bribes, firms will flee to
lower-regulation settings. In this way, interjurisdictional competition may discipline local governments,
reducing corruption and causing them to supply public goods efficiently (Brennan and Buchanan 1980;
Montinola et al. 1995). The impact of such competition should be greater, the lower the cost of moving
between units; moving costs should increase with the size of the units.
However, the fear of losing mobile capital may fail to discipline local governments for a number of
reasons (e.g., Cai and Treisman 2005). Or governments may compete to attract capital by promising corrupt
benefits to local businesses at the expense of the central government (Cai and Treisman 2004). Even if
interjurisdictional competition motivates local politicians to reduce corruption, it does not increase their
capacity to do so. If most bribes are taken by local bureaucrats and anti-corruption measures must be
implemented by the same bureaucrats, it may matter little how motivated the politicians are to clean up
government. And if anti-corruption measures are costly, the inability to tax mobile capital may make it harder
for local governments to fund such efforts.
The relevant type of decentralization here is devolution of decisionmaking about regulation or taxation
to subnational levels; among countries with a similar level of such devolution, one might expect a positive
8/18/2019 Pol Dec and Corruption
10/52
analysis, we tried using measures of the extent of decisionmaking decentralization in specific public service
areas, constructed by Henderson (2000). Henderson coded whether, in 49 countries in 1960-95, authority for
primary education, local highway construction, and local policing belonged to the central, regional, or local
governments, or some combination of the three.6 (Of these 49 countries, 35 were included in the WBES.)
Both local road construction and local policing could impinge on the operations of almost any business, but it
is harder to see how the regulation of primary schooling could lend itself to widespread extraction of bribes
from businesses, so we focused on the former two indicators. We constructed two variables ( ROADS LOCAL
and POLICE LOCAL) which took the value 1 if, as of 1995, the local governments participated in
decisionmaking on the issue in question, and 0 otherwise.7 The arguments in Section 3.2 suggest that when
ROADS LOCAL and/or POLICE LOCAL equal one, greater factor mobility might be associated with lower
corruption. To capture the average size of subnational units, which should be positively related to moving
costs, we used our variable BOTTOM SIZE .
3.3 Electoral accountability
For several reasons, holding elections at the local level rather than just the center might increase the
accountability of government (see e.g. Seabright 1996). First, voters might have better information about local
than about central government performance. Second, whereas national elections focus on government
performance nationwide, local elections can focus more specifically on performance in each region. Third,
dividing up responsibilities among several levels of elected government might make it easier for voters to
attribute credit or blame among them (under decentralization, one can vote for an honest central government
6 The details of the data set constructed by Henderson (2000) can be obtained through direct communications withHenderson
8/18/2019 Pol Dec and Corruption
11/52
and against a corrupt local government rather than having to vote for or against the team as a whole).8 Fourth,
the smaller a unit’s electorate, the easier it should be for voters to coordinate on a voting strategy to discipline
the incumbent.
Questions can be raised about each of these arguments. First, local corruption can be concealed at least
as well as central corruption, and watchdog groups and investigative journalists tend to devote more resources
to monitoring national government since the stakes are generally higher. Second, voters evaluate incumbents
on multiple dimensions and it is not clear whether corruption will be more salient in local or in national
elections. Even if voters voted on just the corruption question, competition in a national election should often
motivate central candidates to fight corruption in each district (if they do not, their adversary will, winning
votes in the affected unit). Third, dividing responsibilities among levels may muddle rather than clarify the
attribution of responsibility (compare a system in which two levels share responsibility for all policy areas to
one in which a central government is alone responsible for all). Finally, coordinating is only significantly
easier in groups that are very small (and smaller than the electorates of most existing local districts). Even in
tiny villages, there are many dimensions on which voters could judge local officials, rendering coordination to
discipline them on corruption problematic.9 To capture differences in the extent of local electoral
accountability, we used the variables BOTTOM TIER ELECTION and SECOND LOWEST TIER ELECTION .
3.4 Fiscal incentives
The greater is corruption, the lower will be the motivation of firms to produce. Given this, some argue
that corruption will fall if local officials are given a large personal stake in local economic activity. Under
tax-sharing systems, the larger the share local governments retain of marginal tax revenues, the lower
8/18/2019 Pol Dec and Corruption
12/52
should be their incentive to extract bribes (Montinola, Qian, and Weingast 1995, Zhuravskaya 2000, Jin et
al. 2005). Since the argument relates to the marginal rate at which local governments benefit from
increased local business activity, the relevant variable is the local governments’ revenue as a share of
local income at the margin. As usual, there are caveats. Increasing local governments’ share means
decreasing the shares of other levels. If local governments become more motivated to support economic
performance, governments at other levels should become less motivated. Since, for better or worse,
governments at all levels influence economic performance, the resulting net effect is indeterminate
(Treisman 2006). Moreover, local officials may derive greater utility from bribe revenue, which they can
spend at will, than from increased revenue officially received by the local budget, which may be costly to
embezzle. If officials are already constrained by the risk of detection from embezzling more, then
increasing the local tax share may not make them want to reduce their bribe taking in order to expand the
local budget.
To test this argument, we use subnational government revenues as a percentage of GDP. The data
are mostly from the IMF’s Government Finance Statistics Yearbooks (as collected in the World Bank’s
database of fiscal decentralization indicators), supplemented by additional sources on specific countries.
We took the average value for all available years between 1994 and 2000. There are some missing
observations in this variable so the sample size falls from 67 countries (6,676 observations) to 54
countries (5,598 observations) when we include it. Some previous studies used a variable measuring the
share of local revenues or expenditures in total public revenues or expenditures to look for the effects of
fiscal decentralization. However, since the argument here concerns the share of local income that local
governments retain through taxation, we prefer an indicator that measures this more closely—the share of
local revenues in GDP
8/18/2019 Pol Dec and Corruption
13/52
3.5 Local collusion
Some economists suggest local officials are simply more susceptible to corruption than their central
counterparts, perhaps because they have more opportunities for face-to-face interactions with businessmen
(e.g., Prud’homme 1995, Tanzi 1995, Bardhan and Mookherjee 2000) Local press and citizen groups may be
weaker—and more subject to intimidation or cooptation—than at the center. Interest groups may be more
cohesive at the local level, leading to greater state capture. By this logic, government should be more corrupt,
the greater the share of government personnel located at subnational levels.
However, one could also argue the opposite. Even if the intimacy of interaction and the cohesiveness of
interest groups are greater at the local level, the potential kickbacks and payoffs in national politics are likely
to be higher. As noted in Section 3.3, voters are often assumed to be better informed about their local
governments than about politics in the nation’s capital. In any case, the real question is not whether local
governments are likely to be more corrupt than central governments but whether elected local governments
with decisionmaking power are likely to be more or less corrupt than centrally appointed local agents with
more restricted authority. Whether there is a general answer to this question is unclear. To test this argument,
we constructed a measure of government personnel decentralization—the subnational share in total civilian
government employees as of the mid-1990s, as estimated by Schiavo-Campo et al. (1997). We control for
total government employment as a share of the labor force, since, as noted, the size of government as a whole
might itself be related to corruption.
4 Corruption data and controls
4.1 The survey
8/18/2019 Pol Dec and Corruption
14/52
The questionnaire touched on many aspects of firms’ operations, including corruption, regulation, and the
institutional environment. The firms surveyed varied in size (including a large number of small and
medium-size enterprises), ownership (both public and private), industrial sector, and organizational structure.
Because of missing firm-level and decentralization variables, the number of firms we could include in our
analysis starts at about 6,700 (from 67 countries), and falls lower as additional variables are added. Previous
work has used the WBES data to study such outcomes as firm growth, investment flows, the effects of
institutions, property rights, and corruption (Hellman, Kaufman, and Schankerman, 2000; Djankov, La Porta,
Lopez-De-Silanes, and Shleifer, 2003; Beck, Demirguc-Kunt and Maksimovic, 2005; Acemoglu and Johnson,
2005; Beck, Demirguc-Kunt and Levine 2006; Ayyagari, Demirguc-Kunt and Maksimovic, 2007, Barth, Lin,
Lin and Song, 2008). According to Reinikka and Svensson (2006, p.367), the WBES shows that “with
appropriate survey methods and interview techniques, it is possible to collect quantitative data on corruption
at the micro-level.”
4.2 Measures of corruption
We constructed two measures of corruption using WBES data. The first, which we call BRIBE
FREQUENCY , is based on a question in which respondents were asked: “Is it common for firms in your
line of business to have to pay some irregular ‘additional payments’ to get things done.” The interviewers
assured respondents that their responses would be kept completely confidential, and that their names and
the names of their firms would never be identified in any publication or survey document. In addition, to
encourage honest responses, the question asked only about unofficial payments “in your line of business”
rather than those “paid by your firm” (Johnson, McMillan and Woodruff 2002). Managers could choose
between six responses: 1 (never), 2 (seldom), 3 (sometimes), 4 (frequently), 5 (usually), and 6 (always).
8/18/2019 Pol Dec and Corruption
15/52
occurred “4 ( frequently),” 12 percent reported “5 (usually),” and 9 percent reported “6 (always)”. In
countries such as Bangladesh, Nigeria, Tanzania, Thailand, Uganda, and Zimbabwe, more than 90 percent
of the firms sampled reported that such unofficial payments occurred at least occasionally. The lowest
rate of reported bribery was in Singapore, where 90 percent said firms like theirs never had to make
unofficial payments.
Our second measure, which we call BRIBE AMOUNT , was constructed from a question that asked:
“On average, what percent of total annual sales do firms like yours typically pay in unofficial
payments/gifts to public officials?” The survey offered seven choices: (1) 0 percent, (2) 0-1 percent, (3)
1-1.99 percent, (4) 2-9.99 percent, (5) 10-12 percent, (6) 13-25 percent, and (7) over 25 percent. Out of
the original sample of 80 countries, respondents in 60 countries answered this question. Overall, more
than 62 percent of those who responded reported that firms like theirs typically made positive unofficial
payments to public officials. More than 38 percent reported that such payments were greater than 1
percent of total sales; about 11 percent said payments exceeded 10 percent of total sales. The average size
of such payments varied across both countries and the firms within them.
The two measures of corruption are complementary, capturing different dimensions that may not
always coincide (bribes could be frequent but tiny, or rare but large). In some respects, the amount of
bribes paid is the more interesting variable. However, it was also apparently perceived by respondents as
more sensitive: in one quarter of the countries, respondents did not answer this question. By contrast, the
response rate for the first question was high: the only country in which none answered the question was
China, and the response rate ranged from 63 percent in Senegal to 100 percent in the Philippines and
Thailand, with an average of 92 percent.12 Consequently, our regressions of BRIBE FREQUENCY can
include a larger range of countries than those for BRIBE AMOUNT . As will become clear, our results
8/18/2019 Pol Dec and Corruption
16/52
The WBES also asked respondents about the particular contexts in which bribes were demanded.
Specifically, it asked whether “firms like yours typically need to make extra, unofficial payments to
public officials for any of the following purposes…” and listed six possibilities: “to get connected to
public services (electricity, telephone), to get licenses and permits, to deal with taxes and tax collection, to
gain government contracts, when dealing with customs/imports, and when dealing with courts”. For each
of these, respondents could choose from six answers: 1 (never), 2 (seldom), 3 (sometimes), 4 (frequently),
5 (usually), and 6 (always). We constructed variables for the first five (Public Services, Business License,
Tax Collection, Government Contract, and Customs, respectively), and repeated our analysis to see if
decentralization had different effects on corruption in these different settings. We did not expect to find
similar results for corruption of the courts, since the arguments that apply to executive officials fit less
well in this case. As a check to increase confidence that some unobserved third factor is not driving the
results, we also ran regressions for the courts variable, and show that the results for executive officials do
not extend to the courts.
4.3 Firm-level control variables
In our regressions, we include dummy variables for firms’ ownership. The variable State Ownership
equals 1 if any government agency or state body has a financial stake in ownership of the firm, 0
otherwise. Foreign Ownership equals 1 if a foreign company or individual has a financial stake in
ownership of the firm, 0 otherwise. The excluded category consists of firms completely owned by
domestic private businesses or individuals. We expect that private firms are more vulnerable to bribe
demands because they tend to have fewer government connections, less political influence, and weaker
bargaining power (Svensson 2003). We also control for whether the given enterprise is an exporter
8/18/2019 Pol Dec and Corruption
17/52
4.4 Country-level control variables
Previous studies have found certain aspects of countries’ economic structure, institutions, and culture to
be significantly related to indicators of perceived corruption. La Porta et al. (1999), Ades and Di Tella
(1999), Svensson (2005), and many others found robust evidence that higher GDP per capita was
associated with lower perceived corruption. Treisman (2000) reported that Protestant religion, a history of
British rule, and a long exposure to democracy were significantly linked to lower perceived corruption.
Ades and Di Tella (1999) found that corruption was perceived to be greater in countries with large
endowments of valuable natural resources (e.g. fuel and minerals) and in those that were less open to
trade. Following previous practice, we control for the logarithm of countries’ GDP per capita (GDP per
Capita), imports of goods and services as a share of GDP ( Imports), democracy in all years between 1950
and 2000 ( Democratic), status as a former British colony ( British Colony), share of minerals and fuels in
manufacturing exports (Fuel), and the proportion of Protestants in the population (Protestant ). To check
for robustness, we try also including the number of years the country had been open to trade, a variable
for presidential system, and an index of press freedom constructed by Freedom House. The empirical
results were very robust to including these variables.13 Table 3 provides brief descriptions of the variables
and data sources. Table 4 presents summary statistics.
[Tables 3 and 4 here]
5 Results
5.1 Basic models
We estimate two sets of regressions, one using the dependent variable BRIBE FREQUENCY , the other
using BRIBE AMOUNT . In each case, we assume the enterprise’s latent response can be described as
follows:
8/18/2019 Pol Dec and Corruption
18/52
, 1 , 2 ,
3 , 4 , 5 ,
'i j j i j i j
i j i j i j
DEPVAR Decentralization Measures State Foreign
Exporter Firm Size Industry Dummies
, ' j i jCountry Controls
(1)
where, , ,
{ , }i j i j i j
DEPVAR BRIBE FREQUENCY BRIBE AMOUNT . The i and j subscripts indicate firm
and country, respectively. Unlike the latent variable, the observed dependent variables, BRIBE
FREQUENCY i,j and BRIBE AMOUNT i,j , are polychotomous variables with a natural order. Specifically,
the respondent classifies the frequency of informal payments or the total burden of bribes into 6 or 7
categories, with 5 or 6 threshold parameters, s ; s is the number of the thresholds. We therefore use the
ordered probit model to estimate the -parameters together with regression coefficients simultaneously.
We use the standard maximum likelihood estimation with heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors. In
addition, we cluster the standard errors by country, allowing the errors to be correlated across firms within
the same country while still requiring them to be independent across countries14. The coefficients are the
same but more significant when we do not allow for clustering and simply run a standard ordered probit
under the assumption of independent observations.
We start by running a regression that just includes the number of tiers. We then run regressions for
the other explanatory variables associated with particular arguments discussed in Section 3. In all of
these, we control for the number of tiers since the way the distribution of powers and resources across
tiers affects corruption is very likely to depend on the number of tiers. Finally, we show a model that
combines all the statistically significant decentralization variables into an aggregate regression.15
Significance naturally decreases as more decentralization variables are included because some of the
measures are correlated. We present the results in Tables 5 and 6. Note that the number of observations
falls in the regressions for BRIBE AMOUNT because of the higher non-response rate. Since enterprises in
8/18/2019 Pol Dec and Corruption
19/52
only 60 out of the 80 countries reported bribery payment amounts, the sample size falls from more than
6,000 to about 4,000.
Ordered probit coefficients do not simply measure the marginal effect of a one-unit increase in the
independent variable on the dependent variable (although the signs and statistical significance of the
coefficients can be interpreted in the same way as for linear regression). To give a sense of the size of the
estimated effects, we compute the marginal impact of increased decentralization on the probabilities that
respondents choose each of the six categories (from “never” to “always”), and show these in Table 7. For
this, we use the coefficient estimates from a model that includes all the independent variables found to be
significant in sparser regressions. Given the correlations between different decentralization indicators, this
is a relatively conservative approach.
[Tables 5 and 6 here]
A first finding concerns the vertical structure of the state. Among firms in this survey, those located
in countries with more administrative or governmental tiers reported that firms like theirs were expected
to pay bribes more frequently and for larger amounts than did those in countries with a flatter government
structure (Table 5). The coefficient on TIERS was significant in almost all regressions. The size of the
effect of TIERS on corruption was also quite large. For instance, adding an additional tier increased the
probability that a firm from that country “always needed to make informal payments to get things done”
by 2.6 percentage points and decreased the probability that firms “never” had to make such payments by
6.7 percentage points (Table 7). These effects are quite substantial given that only about nine percent of
respondents said firms like theirs always made such payments and about 33 percent said they never did.
The burden of bribery also appeared to be higher in countries with more tiers (Table 6). Bearing in mind
the reduced country coverage in these regressions, the estimates nevertheless suggest that more tiers are
8/18/2019 Pol Dec and Corruption
20/52
specifications. Does the effect rise uniformly with the number of tiers or is there a threshold level of
vertical complexity at which corruption increases? To examine this we broke down the tiers variable into
separate dummies for “more than 1 tier,” “more than 2 tiers” and so on. The results (not presented here
for lack of space) showed that countries with 5 or 6 tiers had significantly more reported corruption than
those with 3 or 4 tiers, which were, in turn, significantly more corrupt than those with 1 or 2 tiers.
These results parallel those found for indexes of perceived corruption by Treisman (2002). Although
we hesitate to generalize beyond the sample given the non-random way in which countries were included
(based on the availability of information on relevant variables), this does provide support for arguments
that emphasize the problems of coordination and overgrazing in multi-tier structures.
The argument in Section 3.2 suggested that, conditional on some decisionmaking autonomy at the
lowest tier, corruption should be less frequent and costly when the bottom units are smaller. Thus, we
looked for interaction effects between local autonomy and bottom tier size. We controlled for bottom unit
size, since it could have a direct impact on corruption. Using the general measures of subnational
autonomy—federal structure, subnational decisionmaking rights—we found no statistically significant
effect of bottom tier size. Using Henderson’s measure of local authority over road construction, we found
a surprising negative effect of bottom unit size: among those states where local governments participated
in road construction, corruption was more frequent when the bottom units were smaller. This goes against
the expectation that local governments would be more fearful of driving away businesses when units are
smaller. It is possible that in larger local units, the rent-seeking of bureaucrats is more coordinated and
this effect reduces corruption more than the disciplining effect of small jurisdiction size.
A third main finding concerns fiscal decentralization. In countries where subnational government
revenues amounted to a larger share of GDP, firms reported less frequent demands for bribes, at least
8/18/2019 Pol Dec and Corruption
21/52
This does provide some prima facie evidence that giving local governments a larger stake in tax revenues
may reduce their incentive to demand bribes.16
However, there is reason to be cautious in interpreting this result. There was no evidence that the
burden of bribery was lower in countries where subnational revenues were higher (coefficients were not
significant in these regressions—see Table 6).17 And, interestingly, the reported frequency of bribery was
also significantly lower in countries where central government revenues added up to a larger share of
GDP holding subnational revenue constant.18 Larger central government revenues were linked not just to
less frequent bribery but to a lower reported cost in bribes as well. Thus, one might read this as evidence
of the beneficial incentive effect of giving governments at any level a greater stake in local revenue
generation. We will return to this in discussing results for bribery in particular public services. However,
there is also another interpretation. The level of revenue collection is clearly endogenous. It might be that
excessive bribe extraction reduces government’s ability to collect taxes, whether to fund subnational or
central budgets. Larger government would then be a result of low corruption, not a cause of it. Lacking
any reliable instruments, we can not rule out this alternative.
Some evidence supported the idea that greater decentralization of government personnel facilitates
corruption. We found that a larger share of public employment at subnational levels was significantly
associated with more frequent bribery, and the effect was larger controlling for the level of local revenues.
Greater personnel decentralization was also associated with a greater burden of bribery (Table 6),
although this result became insignificant when more decentralization variables were included.19 We also
used an alternative personnel decentralization measure—the number of subnational employees per
capita—since what matters for corruption may be the ratio of local officials to local residents. This, too,
16 In Fan, Lin and Treisman (2008) we tried some other commonly-used fiscal decentralization measures (i.e.subnational tax revenue as a percentage of total tax revenue and subnational government expenditure as a percentage
8/18/2019 Pol Dec and Corruption
22/52
was significant, suggesting that higher staff levels in local government correlate with more frequent
corruption (Tables 5 and 6, column 9).
Other measures of decentralization—federal structure, subnational autonomy, elections at bottom
and second lowest tiers—had no statistically significant impact on corruption.20 For the indicators of
policymaking decentralization, this could, of course, result from the imprecision of the measures we were
able to construct. The lack of evidence that local elections reduced bribery might reflect the
counter-effects suggested in Section 3.3. Local elections may be manipulated by local elites; voters may
be ill-informed or intimidated; or voters may choose to vote on other issues or fail to coordinate to throw
corrupt incumbents out of office. In some centralized countries, national elections may effectively
motivate central incumbents to discipline their local agents. At the same time, deadlock and
burden-shifting between elected central and local officials may enable all levels to shirk responsibility for
poor governance.21
The firm and country control variables also yield some interesting results. In all specifications,
state-owned firms were less likely than their privately-owned counterparts to pay bribes, and the amount
they reported paying was significantly lower. Other things equal, state-owned firms were 4.7 percentage
points less likely than domestic private firms to say they “always” needed to make unofficial payments,
and 20 percentage points more likely to say they “never” needed to do so. The coefficients on foreign
ownership were negative and statistically significant in 6 out of 9 models for the frequency of bribery
(although usually not significant for the amount of bribery), suggesting a corruption-reducing effect of
foreign ownership, although a much smaller one than for state ownership. These results are consistent
with the view that firms with more government connections and bargaining power are less vulnerable to
predatory bribe-extraction. Larger firms also appeared to pay a smaller percentage of revenues in bribes,
8/18/2019 Pol Dec and Corruption
23/52
levy payments proportional to firm income. Some of the country controls found significant in studies of
perceived corruption indexes were also significant here. Firms in countries with higher GDP per capita
reported less exposure to bribery. Measures of trade openness, raw materials exports, and Protestant
religious tradition were also significant on occasion, but not at all robustly.
5.2 Robustness checks and further exploration
We checked the robustness of the findings in several ways.
First, we split the sample into countries that were relatively more developed (GDP per capita above
the sample median of $5,995) and those that were less developed (GDP per capita below the sample
median). In richer countries, which tend to have more sophisticated legal environments, public officials
may be constrained by mechanisms other than those associated with decentralized institutions. We might
expect the impact of political decentralization to be stronger in the developing countries. As Table 8
(columns 1 to 6) shows, this was true for the number of tiers of government, which had a consistently
significant positive impact on corruption in the less developed countries, but none in the more developed
ones. Whereas our measures of policymaking decentralization were not significant in regressions for the
full sample, subnational autonomy was now significantly associated with more frequent corruption in the
subsample of less developed countries.
However, in other respects decentralization appeared to have significant effects in both more and less
developed countries. Specifically, larger subnational revenues (as a percent of GDP) were associated with
less frequent bribery in both subsamples. The corruption-increasing effect of greater local public
employment (given subnational revenues) was also statistically significant in both subsamples. In
addition, some corruption-reducing effects of centralization seemed to be stronger among the poorer
8/18/2019 Pol Dec and Corruption
24/52
We then split the sample into “high” average corruption and “low” average corruption based on the
sample median to see if the results are mainly driven by the variation among highly corrupt countries (see
Table 8, columns 7-12). The main difference is that the number of tiers has a statistically significant effect
only in the more corrupt sub-sample. Although local autonomy was not statistically significant in the full
sample, it is significant--suggesting greater local autonomy is linked to more frequent bribery—in each of
the subsamples. This effect is, in both subsamples, attenuated by the bottom unit size. Higher subnational
revenues reduce corruption, and higher subnational government employment increases it, in both
subsamples. Total government employment, which, controlling for the subnational employment share,
picks up the effect of central government employment, was associated with lower corruption just among
the more corrupt countries.
The fact that we do not have a balanced distribution of responses across the possible answers
regarding corruption frequency might invalidate the ordered probit estimates; at the same time, a few
outliers in one of the categories with a small number of responses might disproportionately influence the
results. One technique used in previous studies to avoid these problems is to construct a corruption
dummy that takes the value 0 for responses “never” “seldom” and “sometimes” and 1 for “frequently”,
“mostly,” and “always” (Beck et al., 2006; Barth et al. 2008). We do the same, and show the results in
Table 9.
[Table 9 here]
In order to show the effects more directly, we calculate and report the marginal effects of the
coefficients evaluated at the means of the independent variables from the Probit regressions. As can be
seen in Table 9, the empirical results are very similar to our previous findings using ordered probit
models. Specifically, the number of government tiers and the subnational share in government
8/18/2019 Pol Dec and Corruption
25/52
Finally, we examined how frequently respondents said bribery was required for particular purposes.
We ran separate regressions for the reported frequency of bribery needed to: (1) get licenses and permits,
(2) deal with taxes and tax collection, (3) obtain government contracts, (4) get connected to public
utilities, (5) deal with customs/imports, and (6) deal with courts (see Table 10).
[Table 10 here]Several conclusions emerge from this exploration. First, the corruption-inducing effect of a larger
number of tiers appears particularly robust; a larger number of tiers was associated with more frequent
bribery in almost all the regressions for executive officials. Second, in a way that is intuitively plausible,
the effects of fiscal and public employment decentralization were strongest in the settings most likely to
be dominated by subnational officials. Revenue decentralization was negatively related to bribery in
licensing, utilities, government contracts, and customs/imports. The first two of these very often fall under
the remit of local officials; government contracts are signed at all levels of government. Only the
customs/imports result is less expected. The one public activity for which revenue decentralization was
not significant was tax collection, which is often the responsibility of a centralized agency. Interestingly,
for tax collection and customs—both matters often controlled by central officials—the frequency of
bribery was lower when the central government received a larger share of GDP as revenues, arguably
giving it a stronger incentive to support growth.22 Somewhat surprisingly, for a given distribution of
public employees across levels, the larger was total government employment, the lower was the reported
frequency of bribery in for all five types of executive official. Controlling for the number of tiers, bribery
for certain purposes was less frequent in federal states. We also report the results for bribery in “dealing
with courts,” although we do not expect the same factors that influence corruption of executive officials
to necessarily affect judges. This expectation is borne out: except for bottom unit size—larger local units
8/18/2019 Pol Dec and Corruption
26/52
This reduces the fear that corruption in all spheres and administrative complexity are both driven by some
unobserved third factor.
Finally, in an early version of the paper (Fan, Lin and Treisman, 2008), we conducted a number of
additional robustness tests. For example, one of the advances of this study is to use an experience-based
measure of corruption. How do the results differ from those that would be obtained using measures of
perceived corruption (i.e. the Transparency International Index and World Bank Corruption Control Index)
as dependent variables? To assess this, Fan, Lin and Treisman (2008) present similar regressions using
these country-level indexes, and we find that in these regressions too a higher number of tiers was
associated with more corruption (i.e. a lower value of the indexes) in most models. As in some of the
WBES regressions, larger bottom unit size was also associated with less corruption (contrary to the
theoretical expectation). However, neither fiscal decentralization nor decentralization of government
personnel were significant (which might be due to small sample size). Also, to check that the results are
not being driven by a few outliers, Fan, Lin and Treisman (2008) presents scatter plots of the
relationships between the corruption frequency and the main decentralization variables,
controlling for all the control variables.
6 Conclusion
Previous studies, using subjective indexes of perceived corruption, have offered conflicting conclusions
about how political and fiscal decentralization affect the frequency of bribery in countries around the
world. Given the complicated, interacting effects that theorists have posited, it seems quite unlikely a
priori that there exists a simple, general relationship between decentralization and corruption that holds in
8/18/2019 Pol Dec and Corruption
27/52
different types of decentralization that are more detailed and specific than those of previous papers, most
of which have focused on just fiscal decentralization.
Among the countries and firms surveyed, several patterns stand out. In countries with a larger
number of administrative or governmental tiers, reported bribery was both more frequent and more costly
to firms. Other things equal, in a country with six tiers of government (such as Uganda) the probability
that firms reported “never” being expected to pay bribes was .32 lower than the same probability in a
country with two tiers (such as Slovenia). More tiers were associated with more frequent bribery over
government contracts, connection to public utilities, and customs, but the effect was particularly strong
for obtaining business licenses and over tax collection. The effect was strongest in developing countries,
and was not significant in just the richer countries taken separately. As the number of tiers in a country
gets high, this effect appears to overwhelm some factors otherwise related to the extent of bribery such as
the size of firms or the country’s religious tradition.
Larger subnational bureaucracies were also associated with more frequent and costly bribery among
the countries in this survey. The effect of higher subnational government employment was especially
strong among more developed countries and over business licensing and taxation. This was not picking
up just a general association between bureaucracy and corruption. In fact, given the size of the
subnational bureaucracy, higher central government (or total) public employment was associated with less
frequent reported bribery in all five spheres of activity, and especially in the developing countries taken
separately.
Based on the survey examined, reducing the size of the lowest-level local units may also be a bad
idea. Contrary to arguments that emphasize the disciplining effect of greater factor mobility, smaller local
units were associated with more frequent and costly corruption although this result was not robust to
8/18/2019 Pol Dec and Corruption
28/52
as Finland) in which subnational revenues came to 15 percent of GDP, the probability that firms would
say they “never” had to make unofficial payments to get things done was .14 higher than in countries
(such as Luxembourg) where subnational revenues were only 5 percent of GDP. Subnational revenues
were significant among both more and less developed countries taken separately, but the effect was
stronger among the richer countries. Where central governments received larger revenues (as a
percentage of GDP), reported bribery was also less frequent (as one might expect based on the incentive
argument—central officials should also be motivated by a larger stake in marginal income), but the effect
was smaller than for subnational revenues. Whereas greater subnational revenues were linked to lower
corruption in business licensing, government contracts, utilities, and customs administration, larger
central revenues were associated with less corruption in customs and tax collection, functions that are
perhaps more often central responsibilities. However, whereas higher central government revenues were
associated with a smaller reported burden of bribery, higher subnational government revenues were not
significant. The effect of fiscal decentralization appears to be to reduce the frequency of bribery rather
than the total cost of paying the bribes.
As usual in this sort of empirical study, there are caveats. Although the data we use are more detailed
and precise than in previous explorations, they are still likely to contain some measurement error. In
addition, the direction of causation is open to question for all the dimensions of decentralization examined
but especially for the results concerning fiscal decentralization23. In more corrupt countries, official
subnational revenues—and central revenues as well—might be lower because agents redirect their effort
from tax collection to bribe extraction. Where officials are more predatory and less accountable, they
might choose to create more complex structures of government, increasing the number of tiers, lower tier
units and subnational bureaucrats in order to provide benefits for their allies These types of
8/18/2019 Pol Dec and Corruption
29/52
instruments for decentralization, we can suggest plausible interpretations of the patterns in the data, but
cannot make confident claims about their causes.
Recognizing these limitations, the study does quite consistently support one line of argument—that
which emphasizes the danger of uncoordinated rent-seeking when government structures become more
complex. The more tiers of government and the more local personnel with pockets to fill, the greater the
danger that the rents of office will be “overgrazed”. Giving governments a greater stake in local income
may reduce the motivation to extract bribes, although it could be just that more honest officials collect tax
revenues more effectively, producing the same correlation. How generally applicable such findings are
will become clearer as they are supplemented by further research examining other experience-based
measures of corruption.
8/18/2019 Pol Dec and Corruption
30/52
References
Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., 2005. “Unbundling institutions,” Journal of Political Economy 113 (5), 949-995.
Ades, Alberto and Rafael Di Tella. 1999. “Rents, Competition and Corruption,” American Economic Review 89 (4), 982-993.
Arikan, G. Gulsun. 2004. “Fiscal Decentralization: A Remedy for Corruption?” International Tax andPublic Finance 11 (2), 175-195.
Ayyagari, M., Demirguc-Kunt, A., Maksimovi, V., 2007. “How well do institutional theories explain
firms’ perceptions of property rights?” Review of Financial Studies, forthcoming
Bardhan, Prahab and Dilip Mookherjee. 2000. “Capture and Governance at Local and National Levels,” American Economic Review 90 (2),.135-139.
Barro, Robert J. and Rachel M. McCleary. 2005. “Which Countries Have State Religions?” Quarterly Journalof Economics 120(4), 1331-1370.
Barth, James, Lin Chen, Lin Ping and Song Frank, 2008. “Corruption in bank lending to firms: Cross-country
micro evidence on the beneficial role of competition and information sharing,” Journal of Financial Economics, forthcoming.
Beck, T., Demirguc-Kunt, A., Maksimovic, V., 2005. “Financial and legal constraints to firm growth:Does size matter?” Journal of Finance 60, 137-77.
Beck, Thorsten, Ash Demirguc-Kunt, and Ross Levince (2006), “Bank Supervision and Corruption inLending,” Journal of Monetary Economics 53 (8), 2131-2163.
Berkowitz, Daniel and Wei Li. 2000. “Tax Rights in Transition Economies: A Tragedy of theCommons?” Journal of Public Economics 76 (3),.369-398.
Besley, Timothy and Coate Stephen, 2003. "Elected Versus Appointed Regulators: Theory andEvidence," Journal of the European Economic Association 1(5), 1176-1206.
Brennan, Geoffrey and James M. Buchanan. 1980. The Power to Tax: Analytical Foundations of a FiscalConstitution, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Breton, Albert. 1996. Competitive Governments: An Economic Theory of Politics and Public Finance, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cai, Hongbin and Daniel Treisman. 2004. “State Corroding Federalism,” Journal of Public Economics 88(3-4) 819-843
8/18/2019 Pol Dec and Corruption
31/52
De Mello, Luiz R. Jr. and Matias Barenstein. 2001. “Fiscal Decentralization and Governance: ACross-Country Analysis,” IMF Working Paper 01/71, Washington DC: IMF.
Djankov, Simeon, Rafael La Porta, Florencio López de Silanes, and Andrei Shleifer, 2003. “Courts,”Quarterly Journal of Economics 118, 453-517.
Elazar, Daniel J. 1995. “From Statism to Federalism: A Paradigm Shift,” Publius 25 (2), 5-18.
Enikolopov, Ruben and Ekaterina Zhuravskaya. 2007. “Decentralization and political institutions”, Journal of Public Economics 91, 2261-2290.
Fan, C. Simon, Chen Lin and Daniel Treisman, 2008. “Political decentralization and corruption: Evidencefrom around the world,” mimeo, Department of Political Science, UCLA.
Fisman, Raymond and Roberta Gatti. 2002. “Decentralization and Corruption: Evidence AcrossCountries,” Journal of Public Economics 83 (3), 325-345.
Goldsmith, Arthur A. 1999. “Slapping the Grasping Hand: Correlates of Political Corruption in EmergingMarkets,” American Journal of Economics and Sociology 58 (4),.865-886.
Hayek, Friedrich. 1939. “The Economic Conditions of Interstate Federalism,” New CommonwealthQuarterly, 5, 2, pp.131-49, reprinted in Friedrich Hayek, Individualism and Economic Order , Universityof Chicago Press: 1948, pp.255-272.
Hellman, J., Jones, G., Kaufman, D., Schankerman, M., 2000. “Measuring governance and state capture:The role of bureaucrats and firms in shaping the business environment,” European Bank forReconstruction and Development, WP #51.
Henderson, J. Vernon. 2000. “The Effects of Urban Concentration on Economic Growth,” NBERWorking Paper No. 7503.
Huther, Jeff, and Anwar Shah. 1998. “Applying a Simple Measure of Good Governance to the Debate onFiscal Decentralization,” Washington, DC: World Bank.
Jin, Hehui, Yingyi Qian and Barry R. Weingast. 2005. “Regional Decentralization and Fiscal Incentives:Federalism, Chinese Style,” Journal of Public Economics 89 (9-10), 1719-1742.
Johnson, Simon, John McMillan, and Christopher Woodruff. 2002. “Property Rights and Finance,” American Economic Review 92 (5), 1335-1356.
Keen, Michael and Christos Kotsogiannis. 2002. “Does Federalism Lead to Excessively High Taxes,” American Economic Review 92 (1),.363-370.
8/18/2019 Pol Dec and Corruption
32/52
Myerson, Roger. 2006. “Federalism and Incentives for Success of Democracy,” Quarterly Journal ofPolitical Science 1 (1), 3-23.
Olken, Benjamin A. 2007. “Monitoring Corruption: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Indonesia,” Journal of Political Economy 115 (2), 200-249.
Olken, Benjamin A. and Patrick Barron. 2007. “The Simple Economics of Extortion: Evidence fromTrucking in Aceh,” NBER Working Paper No. 13145.
Prud’homme, Remy. 1995. “On the Dangers of Decentralization,” World Bank Research Observer 10(2),.201-220.
Reinikka, Ritva and Svensson, Jakob, 2006. “Using Micro-Surveys to Measure and Explain Corruption,”World Development 34, 359-379.
Riker, William H. 1964. Federalism: Origin, Operation, Significance, Boston: Little Brown.
Salmon, Pierre. 1987. “Decentralization as an Incentive Scheme,” Oxford Review of Economic Policy 3(2),.24-43.
Schiavo-Campo, Salvatore, Giulio de Tommaso and Amitabha Mukherjee. 1997. An International StatisticalSurvey of Government Employment and Wages, Washington DC: The World Bank, PRWP 1806.
Seabright, Paul. 1996. “Accountability and decentralisation in government: An incomplete contractsmodel,” European Economic Review 40 (1), 61-89.
Shleifer, Andrei and Robert W. Vishny. 1993. “Corruption,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 108 (3),599-618.
Spengler, Joseph J.. 1950. “Vertical Integration and Antitrust Policy,” Journal of Political Economy 58(4),.347-352.
Stepan, Alfred. 2001. Arguing Comparative Politics, New York: Oxford University Press.
Svensson, Jakob. 2003. “Who Must Pay Bribes and How Much? Evidence from a Cross Section ofFirms,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 118 (1), 207-230.
Svensson, Jakob. 2005. “Eight Questions about Corruption,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 19 (3),19-42.
Tanzi, Vito. 1996. “Fiscal Federalism and Decentralization: A Review of Some Efficiency andMacroeconomic Aspects,” in World Bank, Annual World Bank Conference on Development Economics 1995,Washington DC: World Bank pp 295-316
8/18/2019 Pol Dec and Corruption
33/52
Treisman, Daniel. 2002. “Decentralization and the Quality of Government,” UCLA: manuscript, availableat http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/treisman/.
Treisman, Daniel. 2006. “Fiscal decentralization, governance, and economic performance: areconsideration,” Economics and Politics, 18 (2), 219-235.
Treisman, Daniel. 2007. “What Have We Learned About the Causes of Corruption from Ten Years ofCross-National Empirical Research?” Annual Review of Political Science 10, 211-44.
Zhuravskaya, Ekaterina, 2000. “Incentives to provide local public goods: fiscal federalism, Russianstyle,” Journal of Public Economics, 76 (3), 337-368.
8/18/2019 Pol Dec and Corruption
34/52
Figure 1. Subjective and Experience-Based Indicators of Corruption,
2000
1.000.00-1.00-2.00
Perceived Corruption, 2000, World Bank (high = "more corrupt")
100
80
60
40
20
0
W B E S F r e q
u e n c y o f C o r r u p t i o n
ZWE
ZMB
WBG
VENUZB
URY
USA
GBR
UKR
UGA
TUR
TUN
TTO
THA
TZA
SWE
ESP
ZAF
SVN
SVK
SGP
SEN
RUS
ROM
PRT
POL
PHL
PER
PAN
PAK
NGA
NIC
NAM
MDAMEX
MYS
MWI
MDG
LTUKGZ
KEN
KAZ
CIV
ITA
IDN
IND
HUN HND
HTI
GTM
GHA
DEU
GEO
FRA
ETH
EST
SLV
EGY
ECU
CZE
HRVCRI COL
CHL
CAN
CMR
KHM
BGR
BRA
BWA
BIH
BOL
BLZ
BLR
BGD
AZE
ARG
ALB
Note: WBES “Frequency of Corruption” is the percentage of respondents saying that firms in their line ofbusiness had to pay some irregular "additional payments" to get things done “always”, “mostly”, or“frequently” on the World Business Environment Survey.
8/18/2019 Pol Dec and Corruption
35/52
Table 1. New decentralization variables
Number of tiers of government or administration (including central)
N Percent with
1 2 3 4 5 6
156 1 5 35 45a 10 5
Number of bottom t ier units
N
Percent with
≤ 100 101-500 501-1000 1001-2000 2001-5000 > 5000
126 15 28 12 11 15 19 Average si ze of bottom ti er uni ts, sq kms
(i.e., surface area divided by estimated number of bottom tier units)
NPercent with
≤ 30 31-100 101-300 301-1,000 1,001-5,000 > 5,000
126 25 17 17 18 17 7 Autonomy
(constitution assigns at least one po licy area exclusively to subnational governments or gi ves subnationalgovernments exclusive authority to l egislate on matters not constitutionally assigned to any level)
NPercent
Yes No
132 19 81Executives at bottom tier directly elected or chosen by directly elected assembly
NPercent
Yes No Partly
114 64 27 9Executive at second lowest tier directly elected or chosen by directly elected assembly
N
Percent
Yes No Partly
108 38 56 7a including two coded as 4.5 (having additional subdivisions in some parts of country). All data refer to mid 1990s.
8/18/2019 Pol Dec and Corruption
36/52
Table 2. Correlations between decentralization variables (and ln gdp per capita)Num-ber oftiers
Bot-tomunits
Bot-tomsize
Auton- omy
Bottomtierelection
Secondlowest tierelection
Federal(Elazar1995)
Subnationalrevenues(% GDP)
Subnationalexpenditures (%total govexpenditures)
Subnational %of total civiliangov employment
Numberof tiers
1
BottomUnits
.371 1
Bottom
Size
-.118 -.073 1
Autonomy .044 .157 -.060 1
Bottomtier election
-.131 .144 -.020 .010 1
Second lowesttier election
-.069 .069 -.064 .157 .433 1
Federal
(Elazar 1995)
.017 .218 -.037 .738 .102 .243 1
Subnationalrevenues (% GDP)
-.029 -.002 -.116 .418 .120 .197 .445 1
Subnationalexpenditures (%total govexpenditures)
.114 .211 -.152 .486 .203 .271 .585 .815 1
Subnational % of
total civilian govemployment
.031 .085 -.124 .328 .460 .231 .375 .516 .718 1
Ln gdp per capita1999
-.485 -.100 -.053 .249 .337 .227 .264 .306 .210 .298
8/18/2019 Pol Dec and Corruption
37/52
36
Table 3: Description and Sources of Key Variables
Variable Description Source WBES Countries Missing From Data
Firm Characteristics andCorruption Measures
Bribe Frequency
It is common for firms in my line of businessto have to pay some irregular "additionalpayments" to get things done: (1) never, (2)seldom, (3) sometimes. (4) frequently, (5)mostly, (6) always.
World Business EnvironmentSurvey (WBES)
Bribe Amount
On average, what percentage of revenues
do firms like yours typically pay per year inunofficial payments to public officials: (1)0%, (2) greater than 0 and less than 1%,(3) 1-1.99%, (4) 2-9.99%, (5) 10-12%, (6)13-25%, (7) over 25%.
World Business EnvironmentSurvey (WBES)
Foreign OwnershipDummy variable that equals 1 if any foreigncompany or individual has a financial stakein the ownership of the firm, 0 otherwise
World Business EnvironmentSurvey (WBES)
State Ownership
Dummy variable that equals 1 if any
government agency or state body has afinancial stake in the ownership of the firm, 0otherwise
World Business EnvironmentSurvey (WBES)
ExporterDummy variable that equals 1 if firmexports, 0 otherwise.
World Business EnvironmentSurvey (WBES)
Firm Size Natural logarithm of firm's salesWorld Business Environment
Survey (WBES)
Industry Dummies
A series of dummy variables that representthe firms' industries (Manufacturing,Construction, Service, Agriculture, andOthers)
World Business EnvironmentSurvey (WBES)
Political and FiscalDecentralization Measures
TiersNumber of tiers of government.
A tier is coded as a "tier of government" ifstate executive body at that level
480 sources, detailed in Fan, Linand Treisman (2008)
Belize, Cote d'lvoire, WestBank-Gaza
8/18/2019 Pol Dec and Corruption
38/52
37
(1) was funded from the public budget, (2)had authority to administer a range of publicservices, and (3) had a territorial jurisdiction.
FederalismDummy variable that takes the value 1 if thecountry is classified as "federal", 0otherwise.
Elazar (1995)Belize, Cote d'lvoire, West
Bank-Gaza
Bottom Unit Size Average size of bottom tier units, thousandsq kms (i.e., surface area divided byestimated number of bottom tier units)
480 sources, detailed in Fan, Linand Treisman (2008)
Belize, Cameroon, China, Coted'lvoire, Kenya, Nigeria, Senegal,
Singapore, Tanzania, WestBank-Gaza
Autonomy
Dummy variable that takes the value 1 if (1)constitution reserves decisionmaking on atleast one topic exclusively to subnationallegislatures and/or (2) constitution assignsto subnational legislatures exclusive right tolegislate on issues that it does notspecifically assign to one level ofgovernment.
Constitutions of countries in dataset
Belize, Botswana, Cameroon,Dominican Rep, Ecuador, El
Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras,Nicaragua, Nigeria, Panama,
Tanzania, Ukraine, Uruguay, WestBank-Gaza
Bottom Tier Election
Variable that takes the value: 1 if executives
at bottom tier are directly elected or chosenby directly elected assembly; 0 if executivesat bottom tier are appointed by the officialsin higher tier government unit; 0.5 if some ofthe executives are appointed while some ofthem are elected.
480 sources, detailed in Fan, Linand Treisman (2008)
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh,
Belize, Botswana, Cambodia,Cameroon, China, Cote d'lvoire,Ethiopia, Ghana, Guatemala, India,
Madagascar, Malawi, Moldova,Pakistan, Singapore, West
Bank-Gaza
Second Lowest Tier Election
Variable that takes the value: 1 if executivesat second lowest tier are directly elected orchosen by directly elected assembly; 0 if
executives at second lowest tier areappointed by the officials in higher tiergovernment unit; 0.5 if some of theexecutives are appointed while some ofthem are elected.
480 sources, detailed in Fan, Linand Treisman (2008)
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belize,Cambodia, Cameroon, China, Cote
d'lvoire, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guatemala,
India, Madagascar, Malawi, Moldova,Nicaragua, Pakistan, Singapore,
Slovenia, Thailand, Trinidad Tobago,Uruguay, West Bank-Gaza,
Zimbabwe
8/18/2019 Pol Dec and Corruption
39/52
38
Subnational Revenues
Sub-national revenues (% of GDP), average1994-2000, available years, from World
Bank Decentralization Indicators,constructed from IMF GFS
World Bank Decentralization
Indicators (2000)
Bangladesh, Belize, Bosnia,Cambodia, Cameroon, Cote d'lvoire,
Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia,
Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras,Madagascar, Malawi, Namibia,Pakistan, Tanzania, Tunisia, Turkey,
Venezuela, West Bank-Gaza
Subnational governmentemployment share:
non-central government employment as %of total government employment.
Schiavo Campo et al. 1997
Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belize,Bosnia, Brazil, Cambodia, CostaRica, Cote d'lvoire, Czech Rep.,Dominican Rep., El Salvador,
Ethiopia, Guatemala, Haiti,Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Malawi,
Malaysia, Mexico, Namibia,Nicaragua, Nigeria, Panama, Peru,
Romania, Slovenia, Trinidad Tobago,Uzbekistan, West Bank-Gaza
Total Government Revenues
Total government revenues (% of GDP),average 1994-2000, available years, from
World Bank Decentralization Indicators,constructed from IMF GFS
World Bank Decentralization
Indicators (2000)
Bangladesh, Belize, Bosnia,Botswana, Cambodia, Cameroon,Colombia, Cote d'lvoire, Ecuador,
Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia,Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras,
Madagascar, Malawi, Namibia,Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines,Senegal, Singapore, Tanzania,
Tunisia, Turkey, Uruguay,Venezuela, West Bank-Gaza
Total GovernmentEmployment
Total government employment as a share oflabor force. Schiavo Campo et al. 1997
Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belize,Bosnia, Brazil, Cambodia, CostaRica, Cote d'lvoire, Czech Rep.,Dominican Rep., El Salvador,
Ethiopia, Guatemala, Haiti,Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Malawi,
Mexico, Namibia, Nicaragua, Nigeria,Panama, Peru, Romania, Slovenia,Trinidad Tobago, Uzbekistan, West
Bank-Gaza
Other Macro Control Variables
GDP per CapitaNatural logarithm of country's GDP percapita in year 1999
WDI 2006 (World Bank)
8/18/2019 Pol Dec and Corruption
40/52
39
Democratic democratic in all years 1950-2000Treisman (2000),
Przeworksi et al. (2000)Belize, Cote d'lvoire, West
Bank-Gaza
Fuel % of mineral fuels in manufacturing exports,2000
WDI 2006 (World Bank)
Belize, Bosnia, Cote d'lvoire,
Dominican Rep, Ethiopia, Haiti,Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, West
Bank-Gaza
Importsimports of goods and services as % of GDP,2000
WDI 2007 (World Bank)Belize, Cote d'lvoire, Singapore,
West Bank-Gaza
Protestant Protestant as % of the populationU.S. State Department Survey
(2000), as in Barro and McCleary(2005)
West Bank-Gaza
British Colonydummy variable that takes the value 1 if thecountry is a former British colony, 0otherwise.
Treisman (2000), with additionalinformation from various sources
Belize, Cote d'lvoire, WestBank-Gaza
8/18/2019 Pol Dec and Corruption
41/52
Table 4: Summary Statistics of Key Variables
Variable
Number of
Observations Mean
Standard
Deviation Minimum MaximumBribe Frequency 9130 2.914 1.683 1 6
Bribe Amount 5246 2.427 1.542 1 7
Foreign Ownership 9645 0.122 0.327 0 1
State Ownership 9673 0.188 0.391 0 1
Exporter 9463 0.356 0.479 0 1
Firm Size 9087 9.982 7.803 0 25.328
Tiers 9785 3.898 0.947 1 6
Federalism 9785 0.219 0.414 0 1
Bottom Unit Size 9114 1.739 8.862 0.002 83.143
Autonomy 8462 0.299 0.458 0 1
Bottom Tier Election 7858 0.775 0.405 0 1
Second Lowest TierElection
7032 0.539 0.484 0 1
Subnational Revenues(% of GDP)
7714 6.070 5.128 0 23.418
Subnational governmentshare of publicemployment
6741 40.132 19.890 0 92.857
Ln GDP per Capita 9728 8.447 0.938 6.205 10.396
Democratic 9785 0.126 0.332 0 1
Fuel 9111 13.973 21.434 0.001 99.635
Imports (% of GDP) 9685 41.199 19.158 11.519 104.462Protestant
(% of Population)9932 0.330 0.358 0 0.943
British Colony 9683 0.207 0.405 0 1
The countries in the survey are: Albania (3), Argentina(3), Armenia (3), Azerbaijan (3), Bangladesh (5),
Belarus (4), Bolivia (4), Botswana (3), Brazil (4), Bulgaria (4), Cambodia (4), Cameroon (6), Canada (4),Chile (4), China (5), Colombia (3), Costa Rica (4), Croatia (3), Czech Republic (3), Dominican Rep. (3),Ecuador (4), Egypt (4.5), El Salvador (3), Estonia (5), France (4), Georgia (4), Germany (4), Ghana (6),Guatemala (4), Honduras (3), Hungary (3), India (5), Indonesia (5), Italy (4), Kazakhstan (4), Kenya (6),Lithuania (3), Madagascar (5), Malawi (4), Malaysia (3), Mexico (3), Moldova (3), Namibia (3), Nicaragua(4), Nigeria (4), Pakistan (4.5), Panama (4), Peru (4), Philippines (4), Poland (3), Portugal (4), Romania (3),R i (4) S l (6) Si (1) Sl ki (4) Sl i (2) S th Af i (3) S i (4) S d (3)
8/18/2019 Pol Dec and Corruption
42/52
41
Table 5: Decentralization and Bribe Frequency
VariableModel Specification
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)Tiers 0.254 0.263 0.216 0.173 0.108 0.077 0.266 0.334 0.309 0.209
[0.006]*** [0.007]*** [0.043]** [0.152] [0.408] [0.351] [0.000]*** [0.001]*** [0.002]*** [0.014]**
Federal 0.012
[0.940]
Federal X Bottom Unit Size -0.059
[0.654]
Bottom Unit Size -0.004 -0.055 -0.192 -0.283 -0.032
[0.110] [0.044]** [0.123] [0.066]* [0.506] Autonomy 0.036
[0.829]
Autonomy X Bottom Unit Size 0.05
[0.678]
Local Road Construction -0.143
[0.262]Local Road Construction X BottomUnit Size
-0.309
[0.035]**Local Police -0.137
[0.533]
Local Police X Bottom Unit Size -0.239
[0.436]
Bottom Tier Election 0.141
[0.268]
Second Lowest Tier Election -0.05
[0.659]Subnational Revenues -0.025 -0.044
[0.034]** [0.000]***
Total Government Revenues -0.018 -0.02
[0.032]** [0.028]**Subnational GovernmentEmployment Share
0.005 0.008
[0.082]* [0.032]**
8/18/2019 Pol Dec and Corruption
43/52
42
Total Government Employees 0.016 -0.035
[0.331] [0.209]Subnational Government
Employment Ratio (% ofPopulation) 0.124
[0.039]**Central Government EmploymentRatio (% of Population)
0.027
[0.767]
State Ownership -0.534 -0.536 -0.558 -0.554 -0.561 -0.587 -0.505 -0.586 -0.597 -0.557
[0.000]*** [0.000]*** [0.000]*** [0.000]*** [0.000]*** [0.000]*** [0.000]*** [0.000]*** [0.000]*** [0.000]***
Foreign Ownership -0.07 -0.065 -0.073 -0.155 -0.16 -0.105 -0.127 -0.1 -0.114 -0.131
[0.149] [0.190] [0.179] [0.000]*** [0.000]*** [0.024]** [0.001]*** [0.005]*** [0.002]*** [0.000]***Exporter 0.054 0.059 0.068 0.017 0.023 0.037 0.055 0.036 0.026 0.065
[0.155] [0.119] [0.106] [0.658] [0.563] [0.297] [0.064]* [0.269] [0.469] [0.031]**
Firm Size -0.008 -0.008 -0.004 -0.002 0.002 -0.016 -0.02 -0.006 -0.006 -0.012
[0.284] [0.323] [0.662] [0.803] [0.842] [0.034]** [0.003]*** [0.432] [0.432] [0.049]**
GDP per Capita -0.291 -0.277 -0.349 -0.414 -0.395 -0.35 -0.105 -0.317 -0.32 -0.131
[0.000]*** [0.000]*** [0.000]*** [0.001]*** [0.007]*** [0.000]*** [0.205] [0.000]*** [0.000]*** [0.217]
Democratic 0.006 -0.026 -0.066 0.044 -0.015 0.016 0.031 -0.191 -0.141 0.19
[0.967] [0.879] [0.702] [0.804] [0.938] [0.936] [0.864] [0.297] [0.467] [0.351]
Fuel 0.0005 0.0001 -0.002 0.001 0.002 0.000 0.000 -0.003 -0.003 0.003
[0.833] [0.974] [0.614] [0.722] [0.626] [0.989] [0.913] [0.253] [0.292] [0.518]
Imports 0.0004 0.000 0.0002 0.004 0.003 -0.003 0.000 -0.001 -0.001 0.002
[0.902] [0.996] [0.961] [0.237] [0.467] [0.127] [0.907] [0.742] [0.658] [0.537]
Protestant -0.864 -0.906 -0.653 -0.369 -0.347 -0.376 -0.036 -0.814 -0.285 0.409
[0.037]** [0.032]** [0.163] [0.378] [0.381] [0.506] [0.931] [0.116] [0.581] [0.378]
British Colony -0.028 -0.011 -0.074 -0.19 -0.125 0.17 -0.155 -0.118 -0.15 -0.257
[0.825] [0.929] [0.588] [0.319] [0.503] [0.405] [0.294] [0.545] [0.356] [0.202]
Industry Dummies yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yesNumber of Countries 67 63 54 30 30 50 47 48 48 34
Observations 6676 6527 5820 3499 3499 4775 5270 4998 4979 4101Regressions run with ordered probit, based on standard maximum likelihood estimation, with heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors clustered by country.Detailed variable definitions and sources in Table 3. ***, **, and * indicate significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively. P-values based on robuststandard errors in parentheses.
8/18/2019 Pol Dec and Corruption
44/52
8/18/2019 Pol Dec and Corruption
45/52
44
[0.060]* [0.093]*
Total Government Employees -0.004 -0.003
[0.903] [0.926]
Subnational GovernmentEmployment Ratio 0.168(% of Population) [0.129]Central GovernmentEmployment Ratio -0.009(% of Population) [0.919]
State Ownership -0.152 -0.165 -0.198 -0.258 -0.272 -0.187 -0.155 -0.249 -0.237 -0.258
[0.016]** [0.007]*** [0.003]*** [0.000]*** [0.000]*** [0.002]*** [0.019]** [0.001]*** [0.002]*** [0.001]***
Foreign Ownership -0.062 -0.067 -0.106 -0.15 -0.153 -0.093 -0.158 -0.104 -0.139 -0.109
[0.367] [0.323] [0.170] [0.083]* [0.076]* [0.215] [0.042]** [0.172] [0.075]* [0.157]Exporter 0.071 0.074 0.096 -0.001 0.003 -0.019 0.032 -0.001 0 0.001
[0.261] [0.241] [0.228] [0.987] [0.957] [0.712] [0.569] [0.979] [0.994] [0.979]
Firm Size -0.066 -0.061 -0.05 -0.044 -0.037 -0.077 -0.073 -0.062 -0.062 -0.058
[0.000]*** [0.000]*** [0.000]*** [0.004]*** [0.002]*** [0.000]*** [0.000]*** [0.000]*** [0.000]*** [0.000]***
GDP per Capita -0.319 -0.317 -0.351 -0.513 -0.611 -0.549 -0.149 -0.521 -0.552 -0.503
[0.009]*** [0.016]** [0.014]** [0.097]* [0.064]* [0.000]*** [0.329] [0.000]*** [0.000]*** [0.001]***
Democratic -0.217 -0.232 -0.353 -0.144 -0.245 -0.024 -0.262 -0.434 -0.664 -0.471
[0.484] [0.439] [0.264] [0.779] [0.669] [0.934] [0.337] [0.317] [0.121] [0.293]Fuel 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.008 0.007 0.003 -0.002 0.001 0.002 0.002
[0.199] [0.151] [0.230] [0.090]* [0.074]* [0.282] [0.427] [0.760] [0.584] [0.561]
Imports 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.008 0.007 -0.001 0.007 0.004 0.002 0.004
[0.335] [0.386] [0.539] [0.089]* [0.199] [0.760] [0.114] [0.433] [0.558] [0.475]
Protestant -